[Dragon-Dancer]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I can't agree DD. Public transit can never really replace a car. Even in a city such as NYC where public transit is very prevalent I found it slow compared to cabbing it.

The more difficult it is to get into a city just encourages people to either live down-town or as close as they can get to down-town. That's what has happened in Toronto where the condo is king.

I had an opportunity to do a spell in Toronto recently but I declined. My commute is 10 minutes now, I don't want to add another two hours on my day just to travel to TO.

If it works in a lot of European cities it can work here too, it just needs to be well planned and able to handle the volume of traffic it will likely get. The problem as I see it is that the car culture has taken root so strongly in north america that it's hard for people to envision an alternative.

I also don't see a problem with encouraging people to live closer to work. I understand the benefits of living in the burbs as much as the next guy but if you spend your whole life commuting it's not going to be of much benefit. The other option is telecommuting which is becoming a very nice option for those of us who can get away with it.

[andyt]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I can't agree DD. Public transit can never really replace a car. Even in a city such as NYC where public transit is very prevalent I found it slow compared to cabbing it.

cabs are a very efficient way of transportation - you need far less cabs than people, vs private cars that have to be parked somewhere when not in use. Cabs really are a public form of transportation. It's the single occupant vehicles streaming into the city every day that are the problem.

And I doubt too many New Yorkers commute by cab. That's to get around Manhatten, not to come in from the boroughs.

[Dragon-Dancer]

andyt andyt:

The proper thing to do is put an efficient transit system in place first, then start squeezing people out of their cars. But no politician will do that, because it takes massive bucks, and all the drivers will winge about their tax dollars being spent on it. In Vancouver we struggle to fund transit while making it tough on drivers - not a solution that leads to happy campers. But soon a major entry point to the city will become a tolled bridge - that will likely reduce vehicle inflow from the far burbs substantially. And they will add another gas tax to fund an expansion of the skytrain system. But of course the winging is already rising high to the heavens.

You certainly do need to get the infrastructure in place before you can do anything to change people's ingrained behavior. People here in Edmonton have been complaining mightily about all the LRT construction but the reality is that since they put in new lines ridership has been up substantially. Obviously there is a need. I know if the LRT went anywhere near where I work I would be using it over driving any day.

[andyt]

Dragon-Dancer Dragon-Dancer:

andyt andyt:

The proper thing to do is put an efficient transit system in place first, then start squeezing people out of their cars. But no politician will do that, because it takes massive bucks, and all the drivers will winge about their tax dollars being spent on it. In Vancouver we struggle to fund transit while making it tough on drivers - not a solution that leads to happy campers. But soon a major entry point to the city will become a tolled bridge - that will likely reduce vehicle inflow from the far burbs substantially. And they will add another gas tax to fund an expansion of the skytrain system. But of course the winging is already rising high to the heavens.

You certainly do need to get the infrastructure in place before you can do anything to change people's ingrained behavior. People here in Edmonton have been complaining mightily about all the LRT construction but the reality is that since they put in new lines ridership has been up substantially. Obviously there is a need. I know if the LRT went anywhere near where I work I would be using it over driving any day.

How does LRT work out for you guys. We have skytrain - ie elevated. It's nice because it avoids traffic tie ups. I can get downtown faster on it than by car during the day. But it costs a fortune and many people are saying that LRT, which gets you multiple km for the same price is the way to go. But then you have intersections to deal with - how does that work out?

[martin14]

Dragon-Dancer Dragon-Dancer:

If it works in a lot of European cities .....

pssst..... it doesn't work.

[bootlegga]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I can't agree DD. Public transit can never really replace a car. Even in a city such as NYC where public transit is very prevalent I found it slow compared to cabbing it.

The more difficult it is to get into a city just encourages people to either live down-town or as close as they can get to down-town. That's what has happened in Toronto where the condo is king.

I had an opportunity to do a spell in Toronto recently but I declined. My commute is 10 minutes now, I don't want to add another two hours on my day just to travel to TO.

I don't know about that.

When I lived in Japan, it was much easier to get around Tokyo by train than it was by car.

The problem with public transit is that most Canadian cities are far too spread out and not nearly dense enough to have a subway system that is the equivalent of those on other major cities around the world.

[EyeBrock]

It's a bit of a commute for me. The GTA to Tokyo......

Plus Japan had the dubious benefit of it's major cities being redesigned after the USAF turned them into rubble.

[bootlegga]

Dragon-Dancer Dragon-Dancer:

peck420 peck420:

In the future urban environment expect more of these http://gajitz.com/the-segway-car-gms-tiny-electric-urban-concept-car/.

And less of the typical sedan/suv concept currently around.

As already stated, current setup is not sustainable from an energy or a financial view.

Something needs to be done. Just need to figure out that something that works for the most people.

It pains me to watch my city completely ignore issues that cities like Toronto face today. These are the same problems we will be facing tomorrow unless we start planning around them now.

At least Mandel is a proponent of LRT construction and we've seen quite a bit more if that going on than at any time before him. It's still not an ambitious enough plan to solve the problem before it becomes any worse than it already is. Unfortunately, this is one of the few issues he's tackled so far I can agree with.

Yeah but Mandel is the city's biggest hypocrite.

He talks about sustainability, about building more LRT, etc., yet lives in Riverbend in a huge mansion and drives in everyday. Hell, just the other day he was bitching that the Transportation Department put up a set of lights on his route to and from work - extending his commute by 30 seconds.

I don't take anything that guy says seriously.

[commanderkai]

andyt andyt:

Arguing is easy if you just make shit up - where did I write about banning cars?

You're right, my mistake, I forgot you have absolutely no argument. At all. Unless you think posting the obvious that cars in cities cause traffic is somehow some enlightening revelation to us huddled masses. Ah, but let's just waste time by posting the same thing over and over, because certainly we're all totally blind, even though a number of us have experienced bad traffic delays.

$1:

The city won't cope with infrastructure changes? Won't? Just holding it's breath til it turns blue? You have some scheme how to accomodate ever more cars in the same space, genius? You should let cities across the world know about it, since they all struggle with this question. You'd win a prize for sure.

Expanding highways, shoring up road infrastructure, properly planning construction projects so it doesn't make the commute worse, proper use and design of one-way streets, stopping side of the road parking.

All alternatives that can be used to lessen traffic within cities.

[andyt]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Expanding highways, shoring up road infrastructure, properly planning construction projects so it doesn't make the commute worse, proper use and design of one-way streets, stopping side of the road parking.

All alternatives that can be used to lessen traffic within cities.

Well, like I said, you should write the city or apply for a job since they obviously can't come up with those ideas on their own. Maybe because there are conflicting demands. As for expanding highways, yeah that's worked out real well in the past.

$1:

The disheartening study used data from hundreds of metro areas in the U.S. to reach the conclusion that there is a "fundamental law of highway congestion," which essentially says that people drive more when there are more roads to drive on--no matter how much traffic there is. As a result, increased building of "interstate highways and major urban roads is unlikely to relieve congestion of these roads."

So what does help? The University of Toronto researchers offer just one suggestion: congestion pricing. It's a pain for commuters, but that's sort of the point. People are desperate to drive, so if you want less traffic, you have to make it harder for them.

http://www.fastcompany.com/1756746/building-more-roads-causes-traffic-study

It's about getting less cars on the roads, not more and more. And while the article says just building transit doesn't help, it will certainly help if you have congestion pricing, as it gives people an alternative.

[Dragon-Dancer]

martin14 martin14:

Dragon-Dancer Dragon-Dancer:

If it works in a lot of European cities .....

pssst..... it doesn't work.

It seemed to work just fine in Paris and London, in fact most of the rail system in Europe I've used seemed very well thought out and very well organized.

[bootlegga]

andyt andyt:

How does LRT work out for you guys. We have skytrain - ie elevated. It's nice because it avoids traffic tie ups. I can get downtown faster on it than by car during the day. But it costs a fortune and many people are saying that LRT, which gets you multiple km for the same price is the way to go. But then you have intersections to deal with - how does that work out?

When first built, the LRT ran along a CN line, so it is treated just like a regular train crossing, red lights flash and arms come down to stop traffic - giving the LRT right of way.

For the southern leg of the existing line, it crosses intersections in one direction (usually north/south) and again, it's treated as a regular train crossing and here & there it dips underground to avoid congested/messy areas. Some extra effort was necessary to time the traffic lights properly, and some extra signage (like no right turns on red lights at some intersections) were needed, but for the most part it works pretty well. And the bonus is that it is far cheaper than elevating it.

The problem with building LRT lines on the surface like that is that they take up roadways, which can affect congestion (like shrinking a four road to a two lane road. In some places there are parking lanes and/or service roads which can be turned into roads for regular use, thereby not affecting travel that much. However, in the older neighbourhoods built tighter, this isn't always an option. Neighbourhoods built from the 80s on are better able to accept mixed traffic (LRT and cars) on the same roads because they have wider medians, bigger green belts, etc.

This will be a major issue when they implement the SE and West lines in the next decade. The planners hope is that the LRT line will take enough cars off the road to make a difference - but only time will tell.

[BeaverFever]

Of interest is the the only criticism of the artilce is ad-homimem attacks ("left-wing dribble" etc) and not one real counter-argument is made.

Of course Toronto is not going to become identical to Somalia - it's a metaphor for a city with virtually no services and no taxes, you dummies.

Regarding New York and London - those are highly taxed cities and they are not car-friendly cities either. London actually charges drivers a congestion toll of 10 pounds per day to drive in the urban centre.

And OTI's "real cities have subways" argument is also poorly thought out. Subways cost a fortune and no Canadian city can afford to build one without provincial/federal funds. The "Rob Ford" solution is to do nothing until that money falls from the sky. Further, subways, which are at least 5 times the cost of light rail to build an maintain, are only cost-effective along the highest-volume routes - about 20,000 passengers per hour. The LRT routes that Ford killed are expected be around 3,000 pph. When a bus route becomes too busy to be well served by a bus, the solution is not to build a subway line that will be mostly empty. All you have to do is right the nearly empty Sheppard Line, as I do every day, to see see Mel Lastman's waste of taxpayer money.

This subway argument is just more proof of how Ford's "resepct for taxpayers" agenda doesnt even serve its own purpose when its run and supported by people who don't even know WTF they're talking about.

[EyeBrock]

Dunno about Paris but London, not so good.

$1:

London Claims Most Traffic Congested City in Europe Prize

http://www.londonnet.co.uk/news/2011/ja ... prize.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2515838 ... harge.html

[Dragon-Dancer]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Yeah but Mandel is the city's biggest hypocrite.

He talks about sustainability, about building more LRT, etc., yet lives in Riverbend in a huge mansion and drives in everyday. Hell, just the other day he was bitching that the Transportation Department put up a set of lights on his route to and from work - extending his commute by 30 seconds.

I don't take anything that guy says seriously.

I'm certainly not saying he isn't. I hadn't heard that he did that but it wouldn't surprise me. This is the guy who's closing my workplace out from under me (City Center Airport) just so he can let his developer friends build housing on it and profit. He's just the only one recently who's put LRT as a priority.